WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.

Quote

Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."

Quote

And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?

Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".

Quote

... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.

"Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out."

To me (and apparently to a lot of others) it was not a simple, calm, reasonable assertion, and I don't agree that "she had good reason to feel creeped out", especially since there's no evidence that the alleged incident ever occurred. There wouldn't have been any "shitstorm" if she had not made it public. And shouldn't a self proclaimed "skeptic" be ready and willing to provide verifiable evidence before going public with such an accusation? And where does it say that people shouldn't be skeptical of her assertions and complaints unless her assertions and complaints are reasonable and supported by at least some actual evidence?

Assuming the alleged elevator incident actually occurred: If that's all it takes for her to "feel creeped out" and make it public, and to keep on complaining about it, and to fan the flames with other complaints about alleged sexism and harassment at atheist/skeptic conferences, especially to the point of saying she won't attend a conference because she doesn't feel "safe", I'd say that she has led a VERY sheltered life. Of course I can't speak for all women but I do know some who would have seen the alleged elevator incident as no big deal and would have put it behind them in a matter of seconds, and some might even have taken it as flattering or possibly taken the guy up on his offer. (The Tom Brady thing keeps coming back to my mind too.)

"Yes, yes, "bitches lie.""

Well, women do lie, and so do men, especially when it serves an agenda. Just look at the IDiots and their lies.

"Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink"."

I wasn't referring only to her "Guys, don't do that". She is STILL making a stink. Here is just one example. Other women on the Skepchick site are complaining about sexism and harrassment too. Frankly, they come across like feminazis, and they sound a lot more 'sexist' than the men they're complaining about. I get the impression that they expect special treatment just because they're women.

Notice the stuff about women on stage. I'm sure that there are a lot of men who would like to be on stage at those conferences too but they're not, for what could be one or more reasons. One reason could be that the men who are usually on stage have earned more clout and don't want to relinquish the positions they have earned (Why should they?). Another reason could be that the men on stage, or behind the scenes, are dictatorial assholes who just want to control things. And yet another reason could be that the women, or men, who want to be on stage, but aren't asked or allowed to be, haven't EARNED the privilege. Equality is achieved by being equal, not by simply demanding equality, and whether anyone, women or men, like it or not, you have to pay your dues if you want to play in the big leagues.

There appears to be a lot of atheist/skeptic conferences around the world and different men speak at different conferences, although certain speakers are more 'popular'. Men who want to hold a conference or speak at one have to do what it takes to get it done, and if they don't like the way some conferences are organized they have the option and freedom to set one up any way they like. Women can do the same thing if they don't like the way conferences are organized. If they have paid their dues by accomplishing enough in science (and/or in battling religion) that people are eager to hear them speak, they would probably be successful at conferences they organize, and would likely be in demand at conferences that other people organize.

I find myself think about Danica Patrick. I think that she or any woman should have the opportunity to drive in car races as long as she has earned the privilege, but if she wants to be thought of as equal to the men in the sport she is going to have to earn that too. Shitloads of men would love to drive in car races, like Nascar, and win, but they don't get it handed to them on a platter and neither should women. Some of the men in car racing are thought of a lot more highly than other men and it's because those guys have earned that respect and popularity. Yeah, some of them may have had advantages over other men like being born into a 'racing family' but they still have to produce positive results to earn respect and be thought of as great drivers. And surely there are women who have advantages (over both other women and men) and are born into 'racing families'. I seriously doubt that car racers have only ever had male children.

Personally, I would be real happy for Danica Patrick if she wins any race. If she wins it's because she earned it, by working hard and persevering through all the difficulties of highly competitive auto racing, just like ALL the men have to do if they want to win.

I also find myself thinking of Shirley Muldowney. She earned the respect and popularity that she got and still has. Just ask 'the good ol' boys' of drag racing, and drag racing fans. And I'd be willing to bet that she ran into a lot more obstacles and 'sexism' in drag racing (especially back then) than Rebecca Watson will ever even imagine, let alone have to contend with at atheist/skeptic conferences.

"Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure."

I'll have to take your word for it that those things have happened because I haven't kept up with the whole thing and I haven't seen any rape threats or beyond. I certainly wouldn't condone any rape threats but I think that RW brought the "shitstorm" onto herself and is still doing so. If she had a verifiable, legitimate complaint she would likely get much more universal sympathy and respect.

RW could have stopped the "shitstorm" long ago, and she could have easily prevented it right from the beginning. Methinks she has some growing up to do, and I also think that she needs to realize that neither she nor any other woman (or man) is going to be invited "on stage" unless they earn it and are in demand. I don't know about the rest of you but I wouldn't attend an event to hear someone speak just because of their gender, and I wouldn't NOT attend just because they're a woman. Regardless of their gender they had better have something worthwhile to hear, and be good at saying it. Plenty of women draw audiences at all kinds of events around the world and it's because they worked hard to be that draw.

I used to have a girlfriend who authored books and got paid to speak at events all over the USA for many years. She never complained about sexism or misogyny or harassment or any other problems with discrimination at events or otherwise, and I seriously doubt that she never encountered any of that. She spent her life working very hard at learning and writing and speaking, and didn't play the victim card even though she had experienced some awful things (from men) in her personal life when she was young and had been married to a less than stellar guy. She had very good reasons to be a man hater but wasn't, and she didn't see herself as someone who needed special rights, treatment, or privileges. She also didn't see men as competitors or that they were holding her back, even when some people thought that she had good reasons to do so. She knew that hard work and dedication would pay off and that she had to pay her dues to get what she wanted and deserved. She loved what she did and was really good at it. Damn, I miss her.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.

Well, whether she meant it that way or not, apparently people felt that she was demanding that people obey her, which ruffled feathers of men and women. While there were some assholes originally (there always will be, so why anybody was surprised I have no idea), even the people who were saying that she didn't speak for them (the women responding to her) were tarred and feathered with the MRA/mysoginist/gender-traitor/etc labels, told to shove porcupines up tender places, edited, censored, banned, and more. Debate was impossible because RW could do no wrong and spoke for everyone.

Quote

Quote

Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."

No, merely that the tale kept getting bigger and bigger, and more intricate, just like all other tales we see in history. They just grow into things a bit hard to swallow. The original story sounds entirely plausible, but when all the rest were added in - Rebecca's problem that seemed to develop and disappear fast - the one where she can't remember/ID faces so she knew this guy was at the talk and bar how? - it sounds suspiciously like a political move. Altering the tale to counter arguments or make it worse than it was.

Quote

Quote

And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?

Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".

This I have to agree with...to a point. The original point was trivial and not a stink, but when it blew up...virtually everything was a public stink over the further arguments, and the original points (both hers and her lack of professionalism when speaking) went to the curb.

Quote

Quote

... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.

Quote (cubist <!--QuoteBegin--The whole truth @ June 04 2012+05:44)

WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's [i)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->not[/i] the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.

Well, whether she meant it that way or not, apparently people felt that she was demanding that people obey her, which ruffled feathers of men and women. While there were some assholes originally (there always will be, so why anybody was surprised I have no idea), even the people who were saying that she didn't speak for them (the women responding to her) were tarred and feathered with the MRA/mysoginist/gender-traitor/etc labels, told to shove porcupines up tender places, edited, censored, banned, and more. Debate was impossible because RW could do no wrong and spoke for everyone.

Quote

Quote

Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."

No, merely that the tale kept getting bigger and bigger, and more intricate, just like all other tales we see in history. They just grow into things a bit hard to swallow. The original story sounds entirely plausible, but when all the rest were added in - Rebecca's problem that seemed to develop and disappear fast - the one where she can't remember/ID faces so she knew this guy was at the talk and bar how? - it sounds suspiciously like a political move. Altering the tale to counter arguments or make it worse than it was.

Quote

Quote

And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?

Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".

This I have to agree with...to a point. The original point was trivial and not a stink, but when it blew up...virtually everything was a public stink over the further arguments, and the original points (both hers and her lack of professionalism when speaking) went to the curb.

Quote

Quote

... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.

If internet trolls are considered the standard for people in society, then I think we have far bigger fish than people think. If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky. I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am). There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).

I do wonder if anyone knows of any study that can show a relationship between online interactions and real world? Do the trolls on YouTube act that way in real life, or only do it from the safety of their computer? Do they say those things because they mean it or because they want to cause a flamewar? Just curious.

ETA: I tried to quote parts, but really blew it and am not sure why, so my apologies for a messed up post.[/quote]"If internet trolls are considered the standard for people in society, then I think we have far bigger fish than people think. If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky. I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am). There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world)."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking more of face to face situations (e.g. being in an elevator with someone) than internet conversations or confrontations but I suppose it could apply to them too. If anything though, it's often easier to deal with face to face situations than ones on the internet. Written words can often be misinterpreted and it can sometimes be very difficult to explain what was meant in the first place, especially after the other party has made up their mind in an incorrect way about what was written.

I was also thinking of how the alleged elevator incident has been described and how easily RW could have dealt with it, and I was thinking of how RW makes it sound like a gigantic problem. I think it was Ogre who suggested that she could have just said no, and that if the guy wouldn't take no for an answer the police could then be called if necessary.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting (and revealing) that she is not only complaining about an alleged guy in an elevator, but also about the lack of "women on stage" and in the audience, and about the way that she and/or other women are allegedly mistreated or not taken seriously enough by male conference organizers and/or male attendees? Talk about a 'lumper'.

She makes it sound like women are being regularly harrassed, accosted, raped, flogged, and keel hauled and/or banned at those conferences. 'Drama queen' comes to mind. If it's as bad as she says maybe she and her fellow female 'victims' should organize their own all female conferences. Maybe PZ could sneak in in a dress. He might have to shave off that weird beard though. :)

It should be remembered that there has been no claim (that I'm aware of) that the alleged guy in the elevator ever touched her or that he was actually mean to her. There isn't a shred of verifiable evidence that she was ever even in an elevator with some guy or that some guy asked her if she'd like to come to his room for coffee. No one made her get into an elevator with any guy and no one, including some guy, made her do anything. Going by her own claims, all the alleged guy did was ask her a question that she didn't like.

Apparently her fragile sensibilities were offended by the alleged question and she had the vapors over it, and when she recovered she just had to bring it up in a video on the world wide web and tell guys not to do that. The more I think about it the more ridiculous the whole thing sounds.

When it comes to thicker skins, I'd say it's RW who needs one, along with anyone else who is so easily offended by something so trivial and harmless.

It's more understandable to me that people can be legitimately offended (to a point) by what others say on the internet if what is said is obviously meant to offend. I know that it's just written words but emotions can kick in when someone says something that is clearly meant to attack or offend. If the alleged face to face elevator incident had been one where a man or a woman had said something to another man or woman (or child) that was clearly meant to be an attack or offensive, even if they were just words, I would be more inclined to be pissed at the offensive person and supportive of the offended person. From what I've seen of this story that was not the case in this alleged situation. Asking a question, even if not the smartest question to ask, is not a big deal or a crime.

I'll admit that I've asked many not too smart questions of women and others, and I'll probably do it again in the future. I'd like to think though that a person I ask a harmless dumb question of in a face to face situation won't complain about it on the internet.

When it comes to sexism, in my opinion women are every bit as sexist (in a bad way) as men, if not more so. Of course there are exceptions, in both genders. So-called 'sexism', like most other things, is something that has huge variables depending on who is asked. What pisses off one person may barely bother another person or even please them. The world is full of highly variable opinions and feelings about all kinds of things, and that's fine except when someone gets unreasonably upset or offended over a harmless question, or some other trivial thing (like drawing a picture of Mohammed).

As Badger said, if people "want to live in the real world", they need to grow (reasonably) thicker skins.

By the way, I wonder what RW would think of joe g? Now that's a face to face meeting that I'd like to see. LMAO

Edited to add: I don't know what happened with the formatting so the easiest thing I could think of is to add the dashed line. My current response is everything below that line.

Edited by The whole truth on June 05 2012,06:56

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Badger, I read again what you said and I may understand it better now. When you said...

"If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky. I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am).

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that you were thinking of the 'shitstorm' response she has received on the internet and that my comment about there being bigger fish to fry than protecting her sensibilities applied to that; in other words that there are bigger fish to fry than protecting her sensibilities from "mean" internet comments.

As I tried to explain last night (but probably didn't say very well) (Is lack of sleep a good excuse?) I was thinking more along the lines of there being bigger fish to fry than protecting RW's fragile sensibilities from a guy allegedly asking her a face to face, harmless question, but it could be applied to what has happened on the internet too, at least in the sense that there are bigger fish to fry than protecting her fragile sensibilities from a face to face, harmless question and/or "mean" comments on the internet, especially when the scale of 'protecting her fragile sensibilities' has been magnified to a ridiculous level by certain people, such as PZ Meyers. If a guy asking her a harmless question or if people saying "mean" things to her on the internet are the worst things that have ever happened to her, then yeah, she has been very lucky.

So, you weren't necessarily wrong in your interpretation of my point, since all the thoughts that I just tried to express above were surely in my mind at the time, along with the thought that "mean" comments that have been directed at her on the internet would never have occurred if she hadn't made the alleged incident public and handled the whole thing so poorly since then, and from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere it appears that she and others who are on her side have made some comments on the internet that should be expected to piss people off and attract some "mean" responses.

It's amazing that such a trivial, alleged incident can turn into such a big stink.

Just so that no one misunderstands me I do want to add, as I said before, that I haven't seen any rape threats or similarly over the top comments directed at her and I certainly don't condone that sort of thing. However, putting comments like that aside for the moment, I feel that she has brought the "shitstorm" upon herself, and is continuing to do so, and that some other people are also responsible for attracting the negativity that's aimed at her.

ETA: corrected a spelling error.

Edited by The whole truth on June 06 2012,00:53

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

I really don't see why this is an emotional or even a noteworthy topic in and of itself. Our entire hodgepodge of human culture has a tremendous amount of baggage loaded into our customs norms and language. People are products of that hodgepodge. Becoming aware of some of the subtler ways we perpetuate some of those prejudices and inequalities is always a good thing in that more information usually seems like a good thing. But for real, yes, it was a teachable moment. Using it as an example of one sort of subtle norm which could be examined is great. Maybe some people are interested and a seed gets planted. But welcome to the world also. There are examples of awkward, creepy, and culturally different people within a thousand feet of almost everyone who lives in a city.

Does it seem more special this one instance than any other? Not really. And the reactions of the ZOMG HORRIBLE HORRIBLE crowd are far creepier to me than the situation which was uncomfortable for a lady in an elevator. It's like being all up in arms because somebody had to eat the 25 hits of acid he was bringing to the party when he got pulled over and listen to him tell how freaked out he was when he first swallowed them while he is tripping on the acid.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

Badger, I read again what you said and I may understand it better now. When you said...

"If people saying mean things on the internet is the worst problem you have, then you're lucky. I think that's the point TWT is trying to make (I may be wrong, correct me if I am).

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that you were thinking of the 'shitstorm' response she has received on the internet and that my comment about there being bigger fish to fry than protecting her sensibilities applied to that; in other words that there are bigger fish to fry than protecting her sensibilities from "mean" internet comments.

As I tried to explain last night (but probably didn't say very well) (Is lack of sleep a good excuse?) I was thinking more along the lines of there being bigger fish to fry than protecting RW's fragile sensibilities from a guy allegedly asking her a face to face, harmless question, but it could be applied to what has happened on the internet too, at least in the sense that there are bigger fish to fry than protecting her fragile sensibilities from a face to face, harmless question and/or "mean" comments on the internet, especially when the scale of 'protecting her fragile sensibilities' has been magnified to a ridiculous level by certain people, such as PZ Meyers. If a guy asking her a harmless question or if people saying "mean" things to her on the internet are the worst things that have ever happened to her, then yeah, she has been very lucky.

So, you weren't necessarily wrong in your interpretation of my point, since all the thoughts that I just tried to express above were surely in my mind at the time, along with the thought that "mean" comments that have been directed at her on the internet would never have occurred if she hadn't made the alleged incident public and handled the whole thing so poorly since then, and from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere it appears that she and others who are on her side have made some comments on the internet that should be expected to piss people off and attract some "mean" responses.

It's amazing that such a trivial, alleged incident can turn into such a big stink.

Just so that no one misunderstands me I do want to add, as I said before, that I haven't seen any rape threats or similarly over the top comments directed at her and I certainly don't condone that sort of thing. However, putting comments like that aside for the moment, I feel that she has brought the "shitstorm" upon herself, and is continuing to do so, and that some other people are also responsible for attracting the negativity that's aimed at her.

ETA: corrected a spelling error.

Basically you have it. I'm sure some may consider me clueless (oh well) but I've had friends (and students, under-age at the time) who were threatened with real rape (actual, physical, in-your-face) and death, and some who were victims of rape. A "threat" on the internet - sorry, I can't get worked up about that. That's like Joe's "threats" to beat people up. If we have evidence that it is going beyond that, then ok, but....

I've been threatened with assault, both from people in the bars I used to frequent (it happens, threat taken seriously) and from my students (usually when they've been written up and are being escorted from the room) - and the latter, while being aware of the possibility, were not treated anywhere close to the same thing as the former. Scale. Perspective. Tolerance.

Maybe it is wrong that we (some of us) accept these things as the price of life and living in society where we don't have thought police, or even "better" indoctrination in one viewpoint. We accept verbal abuse because it's related to our freedoms - at least that's the way I look at it. Doesn't mean we don't try to educate people, try to get them to understand, but we can't force them, and we can't let every little thing get to us. If I received hate mail, that's what the delete button is for.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

PZ Meyers: "There was also an incident on twitter in which a prospective attendee threatened to grope Rebecca Watson on an elevator at TAM..."

Huh? What? Is that what RW originally claimed happened?

I think she said she had been groped, although why she did nothing about it, I don't know (if that is what happened, I am going by hearsay). From PZ's earlier freakout, when someone "threatened" to stand near him at a convention and he went running for security (this was long before the convention), I'm sure he considers this an incident. It was definitely rude and uncalled for, the poster is an ass, but all the response it needs is an awareness of what's going on around you (that may mean no drunken parties) that anyone who grew up in a city should have anyway. If she wanted to take action, she could do what others have done - notify the convention people, as well as the hotel staff/security about the concerns, and stay aware. And if something happens, prosecute. Don't just accept the "well, nothing will happen anyway" line - that's just being part of the problem. If she thought it was a credible threat, the response if not to whine and blog, but to take action and actually work to fix the problem. If she thought this was serious, and they have the twitter comment, that sure sounds like actionable material to me (at least for the convention organizers).

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

I got the impression that PZ was referring to RW's original complaint, but maybe he's referring to something that happened recently on the internet. If it's just something that was said on the internet, rather than in person in an elevator, is it a big deal?

I've noticed that PZ's choice of words is often exaggerated (sometimes grossly so) and it appears to be for the purpose of making some things look a lot bigger than they actually are. I'm reminded of the way-over-the-top fit he had about the ice cream parlor owner refusing to sell ice cream to atheists (or whatever it was that the store keeper refused to sell them). Man, did PZ make a huge stink about that trivial incident or what?

I'm not saying that I'd be happy if I were refused service because I'm an atheist (or for any other stupid reason) but I'm sure that I wouldn't make that kind of stink about it. I'd be a lot more likely to just tell the store keeper they're a jerk and then go spend my money elsewhere.

ETA: Yes, Badger, your points are good. If there really is a credible 'threat' the proper awareness and precautionary steps can be taken. Unnecessary paranoia and whining about alleged 'threats' of groping or about alleged sexual harassment at skeptic conferences isn't going to accomplish anything positive.

Edited by The whole truth on June 06 2012,20:14

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

In this thread, stephaniezvan says the "evidence" points to me being a "denialist asshole". Yeah, I guess that asking a so-called "skeptic" for actual evidence of her claims of harassment, and for evidence of negligence or discriminatory practices on the part of TAM, and pointing out that the so-called "skeptics" (especially the female ones who are complaining of being harassed) have some responsibilities in dealing with such matters and are expecting unreasonable 'protection', makes me a denialist asshole.

Of course I'm actually a "denialist asshole" because I don't instantly and automatically believe all the claims and don't blindly and robotically believe, defend, and protect every damsel who claims to be in distress.

Show me a damsel who is in legitimate distress and I'll run to help her, but if she's just whining or expecting special treatment I'll say so. That's part of the price of 'equality'.

ETA: I had refreshed the page at Ashley Miller's site several times and there was no way to submit a reply or comment, but I just looked again and now it shows a reply button but it flashes in a strange way. Maybe comments or replies are still allowed. I try again and see.

ETA again: My reply worked, so I retract, and removed, the first part of my comments above.

Edited by The whole truth on June 06 2012,23:46

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Aaaahhh, I love living in a federal state which is predominantly Catholic! Bavaria has got holidays (= days off) the other states can only dream of.

Of course, it's a special brand of Catholicism. E.g., not so long ago sons of wealthy farmers used to ensure the fertility of a future bride by marrying her only when she had become pregnant; it was meant to ensure the unbroken line of inheritance. That was perfectly acceptable to the church. It was practised in my family, too; I found out when I had to submit my family tree to get a position as a public employee.

Aaaahhh, I love living in a federal state which is predominantly Catholic! Bavaria has got holidays (= days off) the other states can only dream of.

Of course, it's a special brand of Catholicism. E.g., not so long ago sons of wealthy farmers used to ensure the fertility of a future bride by marrying her only when she had become pregnant; it was meant to ensure the unbroken line of inheritance. That was perfectly acceptable to the church. It was practised in my family, too; I found out when I had to submit my family tree to get a position as a public employee.

Edit: Kitteh for The Whole Truth.

I'm not sure if you're presenting me with a Kitteh because you think I'm being a jerk or instead as a nice gesture or something, but I'll take it as a nice gesture unless you say otherwise. The Kitteh is adorable and makes me smile. Thanks. :)

And that's very interesting about the special brand of Catholicism.

I have a sister in law who lives in Germany but I don't remember the name of the town right now. She works for the government in some hush-hush job. My brother, whom she's married to, lives in Idaho. Now that's a long distance relationship.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

I'm not sure if you're presenting me with a Kitteh because you think I'm being a jerk or instead as a nice gesture or something, but I'll take it as a nice gesture unless you say otherwise. The Kitteh is adorable and makes me smile. Thanks. :)

Well, I felt that you are very upset about the whole EG thing and I was hoping to alleviate the atmosphere. Maybe I'm just too sensitive (all the kids in the sandbox must play nice) or a tone troll. :-))

There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).

I'm going to go out on a limb here - I think this is really what the whole issue and ensuing storm is about. I think the whole divide centers around two perceptions of how prevalent sexism actually is - so one side feels even RW's comment was an overreaction and feels unfairly personally accused by association and the other side feels the sexism in personal life as a suffocating weight and doesn't see RW's comment as strong enough. And never the twain shall meet.

Of course, then the conversation just feeds itself. People who don't particularly have a stake in it make a comment and get lambasted by someone with a raw nerve on one side and viola - that person is now drawn into an emotion internet kerfluffle about...whatever. And so on and so forth. Such arguments take on a life of their own and ultimately the main point gets rather lost and/or diluted since anyone within earshot (or eyeshot on the Intertubes) has taken some personal emotional stand.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

BTW, for those who have not been following the Cornell Red-shoulder Cam, the first chick (the eldest) of three fledged yesterday. What a worrisome experience that was. She was flapping and jumping around on this light tower platform and then flapped herself right off the platform. Kind of "trial by fall" fledging. At least she had the presence of mind to extend her wings has she fell and actually glided/flopped/flew to a safe tree branch. She then managed to fly to another perch that (it appears) she intended to fly to, so it's looking good for her. One of the siblings watched with some interest for a bit and then practiced flapping himself. Neither of the other two had left the nest by this morning however.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).

I'm going to go out on a limb here - I think this is really what the whole issue and ensuing storm is about. I think the whole divide centers around two perceptions of how prevalent sexism actually is - so one side feels even RW's comment was an overreaction and feels unfairly personally accused by association and the other side feels the sexism in personal life as a suffocating weight and doesn't see RW's comment as strong enough. And never the twain shall meet.

Of course, then the conversation just feeds itself. People who don't particularly have a stake in it make a comment and get lambasted by someone with a raw nerve on one side and viola - that person is now drawn into an emotion internet kerfluffle about...whatever. And so on and so forth. Such arguments take on a life of their own and ultimately the main point gets rather lost and/or diluted since anyone within earshot (or eyeshot on the Intertubes) has taken some personal emotional stand.

My hobby horse is distinguishing individual sexual behaviour -- which may or may not be appropriate depending on the circumstances -- from what one journalist calls "gender bigotry" -- which is just wrong.

Finding someone attractive enough to want to bone him/her is not, in and of itself, disrespectful. You just gotta ask yourself if you really want to send that signal at that particular time.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).

I'm going to go out on a limb here - I think this is really what the whole issue and ensuing storm is about. I think the whole divide centers around two perceptions of how prevalent sexism actually is - so one side feels even RW's comment was an overreaction and feels unfairly personally accused by association and the other side feels the sexism in personal life as a suffocating weight and doesn't see RW's comment as strong enough. And never the twain shall meet.

Of course, then the conversation just feeds itself. People who don't particularly have a stake in it make a comment and get lambasted by someone with a raw nerve on one side and viola - that person is now drawn into an emotion internet kerfluffle about...whatever. And so on and so forth. Such arguments take on a life of their own and ultimately the main point gets rather lost and/or diluted since anyone within earshot (or eyeshot on the Intertubes) has taken some personal emotional stand.

Probably not too far out on a limb. You also have to include those who either have no comment to make other than insults, or those who want to be deliberately inflammatory since it is fun (or whatever). I often hear comments about YouTube comments (who really reads those?) as being representative of the atheists/skeptics/christians/etc, but nobody has any idea (without work) who the actual commenter is and what they believe. If we take these at face value, that Nigerian Prince is real. Using comments or emails as a representative sample of anything (other than themselves) is worthless and proves nothing (other then that some people can be assholes).

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

There is a problem with sexism (and all the other -isms) in society, but I still am skeptical about how big it is and what might be the best way to correct that (and that affects both sides - some people just need to grow thicker skins if they want to live in the real world).

I'm going to go out on a limb here - I think this is really what the whole issue and ensuing storm is about. I think the whole divide centers around two perceptions of how prevalent sexism actually is - so one side feels even RW's comment was an overreaction and feels unfairly personally accused by association and the other side feels the sexism in personal life as a suffocating weight and doesn't see RW's comment as strong enough. And never the twain shall meet.

Of course, then the conversation just feeds itself. People who don't particularly have a stake in it make a comment and get lambasted by someone with a raw nerve on one side and viola - that person is now drawn into an emotion internet kerfluffle about...whatever. And so on and so forth. Such arguments take on a life of their own and ultimately the main point gets rather lost and/or diluted since anyone within earshot (or eyeshot on the Intertubes) has taken some personal emotional stand.

My hobby horse is distinguishing individual sexual behaviour -- which may or may not be appropriate depending on the circumstances -- from what one journalist calls "gender bigotry" -- which is just wrong.

Finding someone attractive enough to want to bone him/her is not, in and of itself, disrespectful. You just gotta ask yourself if you really want to send that signal at that particular time.

It's not just if you want to send the signal, the whole context of the situation has to be considered. In several of our professional development classes this year, we had the topic of "hidden rules" in various groups that people had to learn. We can get behavior problems when someone (say a student) doesn't know the rules about acceptable language when at school, and how that differs from when at home, at work, with friends, etc.

Some people don't know the rules, some don't care, some are trying to change the rules for everyone, some are trying to teach them. There's a lot of sides to that point that I don't think are being addressed. In a way, the morality police have a point in establishing rules for harassment - they are at least attempting to set the rules out in the open for people, but I don't know how well that might work. A convention is not the same as a school or a workplace.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Finding someone attractive enough to want to bone him/her is not, in and of itself, disrespectful.

Quite true, but one question I think that the a number of people are now wrestling with is whether feeding that desire by placing images and descriptions of some standard of beautiful women all over and holding women - either professionally, socially, etc - to that standard is.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Probably not too far out on a limb. You also have to include those who either have no comment to make other than insults, or those who want to be deliberately inflammatory since it is fun (or whatever). I often hear comments about YouTube comments (who really reads those?) as being representative of the atheists/skeptics/christians/etc, but nobody has any idea (without work) who the actual commenter is and what they believe. If we take these at face value, that Nigerian Prince is real. Using comments or emails as a representative sample of anything (other than themselves) is worthless and proves nothing (other then that some people can be assholes).

Quite so.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Finding someone attractive enough to want to bone him/her is not, in and of itself, disrespectful.

Quite true, but one question I think that the a number of people are now wrestling with is whether feeding that desire by placing images and descriptions of some standard of beautiful women all over and holding women - either professionally, socially, etc - to that standard is.

I once told a traditionally pretty friend, "You could look exactly like you do now, but if you were stupid and obnoxious you wouldn't be attractive."

As a buddy said in one of his bitter moments: "Maybe you should eat your makeup. Then you'd be pretty on the inside, too."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

My only objection is the (tackily tiled) background image. Smarties are sacred.

Quote

The chicken, if you can indeed call it that, is surrounded by a fatty slime that you can see in the photo, which makes for an interesting and unexpected texture in a nugget. Though to be fair, this is the first nugget I’ve ever tasted, so if the others available come complete with slime, I can only speculate. The ‘chopped and shaped chicken’ as Tesco would describe it or a disc of mashed up chicken and fat, as I would describe it, has a vague taste of the brown meat you get on a roast chicken. Combined with the slime, it’s quite an unpleasant texture and taste, when any discernable taste does hit you.

My only objection is the (tackily tiled) background image. Smarties are sacred.

Quote

The chicken, if you can indeed call it that, is surrounded by a fatty slime that you can see in the photo, which makes for an interesting and unexpected texture in a nugget. Though to be fair, this is the first nugget I’ve ever tasted, so if the others available come complete with slime, I can only speculate. The ‘chopped and shaped chicken’ as Tesco would describe it or a disc of mashed up chicken and fat, as I would describe it, has a vague taste of the brown meat you get on a roast chicken. Combined with the slime, it’s quite an unpleasant texture and taste, when any discernable taste does hit you.

Amadan - MAN, I LOVE YOUR NEW WEBSITE!!!!!1111

That is some disgusting stuff - eminitely suitable to be eaten by Gordo, Barry A and UDers of all ages.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.

Interestingly, the only "shitstorm" (read: blog drama) that I can find started not after Watson's video, but rather after she personally called out a blogger in person from her position of privilege and power for suggesting that she may have over-reacted. A blogger, I might add, who was a fan.

And again, I'd love to hear what Elevator Guy has to say about all this. "Name the names!!!!oneone!!!" as PZ et al. were so fond of shouting.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound